After initial encouraging start with an IQ280 some real problems have begun to appear while working with large rise movements on a technical camera. Very sudden colour shifts and texture changes. I wonder if anyone else is experiencing difficulties?

The design of the SK 35mm XL in particular does not play nicely with the smaller pixels and the larger sensor design of the 80mp backs and thus will produce the types of error you are seeing. At 47mm and wider in the SK non-retrofucos design it is possible to get casts that are not fully correctable. For very wide angle lenses we recommend the retrofocus designs on the Rodenstock lenses. We have some more information here on our knowledge base: http://www.phaseone.com/Search/Article. ... nguageid=1

Thank you Jon, The effect is most pronounced on 72mm and 90mm lenses where extreme rise is employed, typically when photographing tall buildings in the city. Do you have any information regarding this specifically? As you can see from the image with garden and facade detail, made on a 72SK, image 7IQ280, the IQ280 back completely fails, the comparison image made with a P45+ shows no difficulty at all.

The shift is the maximum my Linhof 679 can manage. It is, however not an uncommon technique in Architectural photography to use large amounts of rising front, especially working with tall buildings in confined spaces.

I was aware there might be problems with wider lenses, but I have to say I am disappointed that the chip's inability to handle rising front on longer focal lengths wasn't flagged by Phase One.

I'm currently running on a hire P45+ back as Phase One believe my IQ280 is functioning normally, however I can't use the IQ280 because the colour shifts are uncorrectable. It is a very unfortunate situation. Especially as the IQ280 represents such a financial commitment.

I do hope that I am the only photographer Phase One has left stranded.

I did some inquiries with an experienced photographer which uses an IQ180 on a technical camera too. Issues you mentioned (uncorrectable color cast and stripes/banding) due to large rise movements are familiar and he has given feedback on that too multiple times.

The high density pixel is the main reason for the issues. The 60 mp back (pixel pitch 6 micron) is a better option than the 80 mp back (pitch 5.2 micron) in this case. Compared to a P45+ (pitch 6.8 micron) a 80 mp back is a great step in terms of smaller pixels or higher pixel density. (note: in a IQ260 you get the long exposure feature as you had in the P45+)

The Rodenstock HR series lenses will mitigate the issues most probably but I have no experience as to what extend and whether either the color cast and/or the striping is mitigated.

Just some info, I am afraid I can not be of more help. One last tip, just for a test (and my curiosity): how does your IQ280 handle large movements when you use the Sensor+ feature. Physically, there is no change in the back but the computation is different and that might effect the issue. And yes, you have only a 20 mp image, I know.

Thank you Paul, I have tested an IQ 260, it suffers the same banding and colour problems, although the effect is less distinct. In side by side tests the P45+ still provides a smooth, even tone and none of the curious 'banding' events that seem to be a feature of the IQ backs.

I haven't had much time for testing, I'm running a full order book at the moment so all my spare time is given over to fee earning, but I shall try to take some time off this week and return to an examination of the performance of the back. The IQ series is a fabulous bit of kit, and ( under the right conditions ) makes an extraordinary photograph, just, unfortunately, not quite coping with this one very particular condition.

Timothy,I don't know that further testing on your end is really needed so much as a discussion with your dealer regarding your system and workflow.As noted in this thread, what you are seeing is well documented with clear corollaries regarding shift, pixel density and lens' used.From your experience with the 260 and P45+ the illustration of this effect is clear. You're dealer can provide you with a proper solution to meet your workflow and requirements.

I'm posting this exert from photographer Ian Mylam's blog because I felt it encapsulates my experience of Fuji, a lesson in how to treat photographers. Worth reading on any camera platform user forum.

Reason #8: Manufacturer Responsiveness and Customer Care

Fuji’s responsiveness to the photographer community in terms of listening to feedback and releasing firmware upgrades to address deficiencies is refreshing and widely reported. That kind of responsiveness and commitment to customers is rare. Fuji really seems to be listening to its photographer user base, and the fruits of this collaboration are visible in terms of the development and enhancement of the Fuji X system. Fuji is releasing software upgrades to improve the functionality of older cameras in the Fuji X range, and not just pushing its latest cameras and encouraging users of its older cameras to shell out for the latest model. Sure, the end result of this is more brand loyalty, and in the long run undoubtedly more sales for Fuji – but if it continues to be sufficiently far-sighted as to look after its customers in this way, the company deserves to be successful and make a healthy profit from the Fuji X range.

There are also numerous reports on the web of photographers who have been looked after very well by Fuji customer service when they have had problems with Fuji cameras, even when the camera is not longer under warranty. This further underlines Fuji’s commitment to its customers, which is laudable.

I have absolutely nothing negative to say about Sony in terms of customer support, but Fuji really seems to be going the extra mile for its customers, and this is another factor for me in switching to the Fuji X system.

I´m an Austrian based architectural photographer and I´m using an ALPA 12 MAX, IQ250 and Rodenstock HR Digaron S 5,6/23 mm, Rodenstock HR Alpagon 4,0/32 and Schneider Apo Helvetar 5,6/60 mm.Before I used a IQ140 and hat no problem of banding at all. With the IQ250 it is not possible to shift in a way that architectural photographers need to do, you get stripes, which make the images unusable! The 250 is a real good tool in handling etc., but the image-quality is really not satisfying at all. I payed a lot of money for the upgrade to the new back and now I cannot use my equipment for my architectural work. The optics are the best you can use for this setup, so why is there no information from Phase One, that your new back will not provide the same quality as your old one??

I´m an Austrian based architectural photographer and I´m using an ALPA 12 MAX, IQ250 and Rodenstock HR Digaron S 5,6/23 mm, Rodenstock HR Alpagon 4,0/32 and Schneider Apo Helvetar 5,6/60 mm.Before I used a IQ140 and hat no problem of banding at all. With the IQ250 it is not possible to shift in a way that architectural photographers need to do, you get stripes, which make the images unusable! The 250 is a real good tool in handling etc., but the image-quality is really not satisfying at all. I payed a lot of money for the upgrade to the new back and now I cannot use my equipment for my architectural work. The optics are the best you can use for this setup, so why is there no information from Phase One, that your new back will not provide the same quality as your old one??

B

Best you make a support case with file samples and we will see if we can help you with this.